Colorado Nightclub Shooter is a (Nominal) Member of the Church

[bluebell]

9 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Sure it does.

No it really doesn't.  

Elder Holland said "“My Brethren have made the case for the metaphor of musket fire which I have endorsed yet again today. There will continue to be those who oppose our teachings and with that will continue the need to define, document, and defend the faith."

How does a call to 'define, document, and defend the faith' with metaphorical defenses at all equal holding up the lgtbq community as "villains and bastions of immorality that must be stopped"?  That's not a reasonable interpretation.

Especially when Elder Holland also said "Let me go no farther before declaring unequivocally my love and that of my Brethren for those who live with this same-sex challenge and so much complexity that goes with it. Too often the world has been unkind, in many instances crushingly cruel, to these our brothers and sisters.”

How thin does someone's skin have to be--how much do they have to wrestle the meaning of the phrases "villains" and "bastions of immorality"--to hear those quotes and come away with that kind of an interpretation?

Disagree with the quotes, sure.  There's always room for that.  But try to make that quote be an example of vilification and labeling the lgtbq community as a "bastion of immorality"?  It's ludicrous.  

[HappyJackWagon]

55 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I would not consider those people/group as being hostile to you either.  They disagreed with some of your beliefs and they didn't accept you in full fellowship within that group, but that alone isn't "hostile" or adversarial from my perspective. 

I think this exchange helps me to understand your views on the church better, as you seem to see hostility in others much more easily than I do, and you seem to assign hostile motives to others when I would not assign the same, and when hostility might not be a motive at all.

Can you describe a relationship that you would find hostile?

Perhaps I see hostility more easily than you do. Perhaps I'm too sensitive. But yes, I would definitely view open discrimination against a religious group participating in a ministerial alliance as an adversarial relationship. I would view rejection of a specific group or the targeting of a specific group (whether religious, ethnic, racial, LGBTQ) as hostile to that group. I see religious people showing up at a school board meeting to demand the Gay/straight alliance be disbanded as hostile. I think it's easier to view hostility in others who don't share your view while people who may be acting in an adversarial way, yet agree with you, are more likely to get the benefit of the doubt.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I have never attributed murderous proclivities being causally linked to membership in the LGBT community.

In contrast, that is pretty much what HJW is saying about the Colorado shooter and his membership in the Church.

Thanks,

-Smac

No, but you often imply people are doing bad things due to their involvement with X but try to personally distance yourself from it or moderate your stance so you can’t be called on it with the same kinds of evasions you are castigating here.

[Meadowchik]

2 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Can you describe a relationship that you would find hostile?

Perhaps I see hostility more easily than you do. Perhaps I'm too sensitive. But yes, I would definitely view open discrimination against a religious group participating in a ministerial alliance as an adversarial relationship. I would view rejection of a specific group or the targeting of a specific group (whether religious, ethnic, racial, LGBTQ) as hostile to that group. I see religious people showing up at a school board meeting to demand the Gay/straight alliance be disbanded as hostile. I think it's easier to view hostility in others who don't share your view while people who may be acting in an adversarial way, yet agree with you, are more likely to get the benefit of the doubt.

Yes and the church has softened enough to make it easy to be impressed a out how much they've changed in recent years, as if that negates what is still effectively hostile.

[HappyJackWagon]

11 minutes ago, bluebell said:

No it really doesn't.  

Elder Holland said "“My Brethren have made the case for the metaphor of musket fire which I have endorsed yet again today. There will continue to be those who oppose our teachings and with that will continue the need to define, document, and defend the faith."

How does a call to 'define, document, and defend the faith' with metaphorical defenses at all equal holding up the lgtbq community as "villains and bastions of immorality that must be stopped"?  That's not a reasonable interpretation.

Especially when Elder Holland also said "Let me go no farther before declaring unequivocally my love and that of my Brethren for those who live with this same-sex challenge and so much complexity that goes with it. Too often the world has been unkind, in many instances crushingly cruel, to these our brothers and sisters.”

How thin does someone's skin have to be--how much do they have to wrestle the meaning of the phrases "villains" and "bastions of immorality"--to hear those quotes and come away with that kind of an interpretation?

Disagree with the quotes, sure.  There's always room for that.  But try to make that quote be an example of vilification and labeling the lgtbq community as a "bastion of immorality"?  It's ludicrous.  

Words are cheap.

What was the context of this talk? Prior to the "musket fire" comment wasn't Holland talking about the former BYU student who came out as gay during a speech. So use of a violent metaphor after addressing an LGBTQ issue is extremely problematic, and yes...hostile to that individual and the larger LGBTQ community. 

It hard for most of us who benefit from so much privilege to place ourselves in the headspace of a vulnerable individual/community. But what IF Holland had been talking about how inappropriate (Name your personal demographic) and then used a war metaphor when talking about defending against your demographic. 

It is ironic that he was cruel and unkind to an individual and his community while decrying the unkindness and cruelty in the world. This was a very bad speech for Holland.

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, Snodgrassian said:

Quote

Wait, are you saying there is no such thing as a "black community?"

How is it an equivalent to say compare Latter-day Saints to black community?

I am not saying the two communities are "equivalent."

I am saying that large portions of both communities supported Prop 8, but HJW and his ilk only cast one of them as intolerant bigots (even now, many years after the fact).

3 minutes ago, Snodgrassian said:

a religion has doctrine, dogma that clearly define it.

And yet Latter-day Saints are not monolithic in their reasoning.  They nevertheless remain a "community."

3 minutes ago, Snodgrassian said:

The 'black community" is made up of all types of beliefs and religions.

The Latter-day Saints also have some divergence of belief, political philosophy, and so on.

Nevertheless, large portions of both communities supported Prop 8.

3 minutes ago, Snodgrassian said:

Your argument is that the black community should be held to the same standard/scrutiny as a religion? 

I am noting the convenient cowardice and mindreading going on here.

It is cowardice to publicly malign the Latter-day Saints for voting in large numbers in support of Prop 8, but saying nothing at all about the similarly significant numbers in the Black community who did the same thing.  The cowardice arises because, well, slandering the 70% of Black voters as bigots because they disagreed with re-defining marriage is a nonstarter, whereas publicly disparaging the Latter-day Saints for the same thing is just hunky dory.

The mindreading is likewise repulsive.  To disagree with SSM is to be a bigot.  To not want to re-define marriage is to hate gay people.  I think . . . not.

3 minutes ago, Snodgrassian said:

Original Study: https://www.issuelab.org/resources/8510/8510.pdf

Churches/religions were the driving force behind the Prop 8 vote, not the black or hispanic communities.

Black and Hispanic communities backed Prop 8 by margins of 70% and 53%, respectively.

But nobody, either back then or now, deride those communities as hateful bigots because of how they chose to vote.

Prop 8 was a "complex" matter:

Quote

The explanation? Many largely black churches supported Prop. 8 while Hispanics, a heavily Catholic community, were more naturally inclined to side with their faith -- and against gay marriage.

Demographics weren't the only reason for Prop. 8's success, argued Rob Stutzman, a California-based Republican strategist.

 

"The better campaign won," he said. "The 'yes' side exploited Newsom's 'like it or not' arrogance and additionally zeroed in on skepticism voters had for what it could mean for children."

(Then San Francisco mayor -- and now California Lt. Governor -- Gavin Newsom enraged many supporters of traditional marriage when following a federal court ruling that overturned Prop. 8 he insisted that gay marriage's time has come "whether you like it or not.")

Garry South, a longtime Democratic strategist in California, largely agreed with Stutzman's analysis. "The 'No on 8' campaign had plenty of money ($40 million plus) -- actually outspent the yes side," said South. "But it was essentially run by a committee of community activists who didn't trust any non-gay professionals and wouldn't take advice from more experienced campaign strategists on the outside who know what they're doing."

None of this matters, though, for those intent on branding the Latter-day Saints as intolerant haters.

3 minutes ago, Snodgrassian said:

It just so happens that those two communities tend to be more religious than the white community.

It also "just so happens" that people of a particular ilk (some in this thread) are unlikely to brand "those two communities" as bigots because large portions of them voted for Prop 8.  This is because A) there is substantial moral cowardice in play, B) doing so would expose the fatuousness inherent in the exercise, or C) both.

3 minutes ago, Snodgrassian said:

Racial communities did not sway the vote, religion and politics were the main drivers,

This is revisionist nonsense.  Blacks comprise about 6.5% of Californians, and Hispanics represent 39%, for a total of 45.5% of California.  Significant portions of both of these communities voted for Prop 8.

3 minutes ago, Snodgrassian said:

hence the protests against the churches that openly, actively, and financially supported Prop 8. 

Hence the moral cowardice, both then and now.  Many largely black churches supported Prop. 8, but I don't seem to recall Black churches being confronted by screaming mobs (such as we saw banging at the gates of the Los Angeles Temple).  

I also don't recall Catholic churches in predominantly Hispanic areas of California being targeted for "protests."

3 minutes ago, Snodgrassian said:

If there were organizations/groups within the "black community" actively campaigned in support of 8,

"If?"  Do you serious dispute that this?

3 minutes ago, Snodgrassian said:

then the treatment of those organizations could be compared to the way the Church was treated. 

Malarky.  The comparison holds, because the treatment was, and remains, disparate.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Quote

I have never attributed murderous proclivities being causally linked to membership in the LGBT community.

No, but you often imply people are doing bad things due to their involvement with X

I don't know what you are referencing here.  CFR, I guess.

5 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

but try to personally distance yourself from it or moderate your stance so you can’t be called on it with the same kinds of evasions you are castigating here.

Again, I have never attributed murderous proclivities being causally linked to membership in the LGBT community.

Nor have I ever implied such a thing.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

We'll have to emphatically agree to disagree on that.

No surprise there.  By the way I really don't hold the Church leaders culpable for any act by some deranged member.  Active or not.  Do I think historically the church leaders language is hostile toward the LBGTQ community?  I certainly do.  Did/Does what they say raise to the level of advocating active violence against such people.  I would think not.

Edited November 22, 2022 by Teancum

[Teancum]

24 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Disagree with the quotes, sure.  There's always room for that.  But try to make that quote be an example of vilification and labeling the lgtbq community as a "bastion of immorality"?  It's ludicrous.

The talk combined with so much from the church against the LBGTQ community is certainly hostile.  If you want to hold to the letter of the words you continue to quote, which were clearly hyperbole, then no they don't.  But historically the LDS Leaders comments towards this group have been unfriendly and yes, hostiale at times.

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I have never attributed murderous proclivities being causally linked to membership in the LGBT community.

In contrast, that is pretty much what HJW is saying about the Colorado shooter and his membership in the Church.

Thanks,

-Smac

It's stunning that you take offense of two "maybe" statements. And that is what you are basing your accusation on.

Quote

As long as the shooter was only a "nominal" member of the church, then all is well. Maybe church affiliation had ZERO to do with this guy's belief system, but then again, maybe some of the teachings he grew up did play a role. Regardless, the church as a whole shouldn't be blamed for every bad actor. Yet, this stuff doesn't happen in a vacuum. 

If you aren't even able to acknowledge the possibility that violent teachings could have a negative impact on a person then it looks like it's just time to go back on "ignore mode" for SMAC.

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Words are cheap.

Indeed.

3 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

What was the context of this talk?

He was talking about scholars at BYU.  He compared them to early Latter-day Saints who, while building the Nauvoo Temple, also stood guard against real threats with muskets.  He analogized this to scholars using the tools of their trade (scholarship) to defend the Church.

3 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Prior to the "musket fire" comment wasn't Holland talking about the former BYU student who came out as gay during a speech.

He was talking about scholars at BYU.

3 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

So use of a violent metaphor after addressing an LGBTQ issue is extremely problematic, and yes...hostile to that individual and the larger LGBTQ community. 

Says the guy who used a "violent metaphor" of his own when disagreeing with Elder Holland.

This must be one of those "It's different when HWJ does it, because shut up" kind of things.

3 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

It hard for most of us who benefit from so much privilege to place ourselves in the headspace of a vulnerable individual/community.

Unfortunately, the people in that "vulnerable" circumstance - many young Latter-day Saints - are being preyed upon by people who are going out of their way to terrorize them, to alienate them, to tell them that their family and friends and religious leaders and community hate them, to instill fear and anger and mistrust and hatred in their hearts.

It's an ugly thing to behold.

3 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

But what IF Holland had been talking about how inappropriate (Name your personal demographic) and then used a war metaphor when talking about defending against your demographic. 

You allow yourself the right to use a word like "combat" metaphorically, but vilify Elder Holland for speaking about "metaphorical muskets."

The irony.  It burns.

Thanks,

-Smac

[The Nehor]

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't know what you are referencing here.  CFR, I guess.

Again, I have never attributed murderous proclivities being causally linked to membership in the LGBT community.

Nor have I ever implied such a thing.

Thanks,

-Smac

I never said you did. I said that the defensive approach you are castigating is one you often use.

Keep pounding your strawman with a sledgehammer I guess. I think you are winning.

[bsjkki]

More about his family life…but go ahead and blame the church. https://heavy.com/news/nicholas-brink/

The accusations of causation here with church teachings are not responsible. 

 

Edited November 22, 2022 by bsjkki

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, Teancum said:

No surprise there.  By the way I really don't hold the Church leaders culpable for any act by some deranged member.  Active or not. 

HJW sure wants to heavily imply that very idea: "Maybe church affiliation had ZERO to do with this guy's belief system, but then again, maybe some of the teachings he grew up did play a role. Regardless, the church as a whole shouldn't be blamed for every bad actor. Yet, this stuff doesn't happen in a vacuum."

7 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Do I think historically the church leaders language is hostile toward the LBGTQ community?  I certainly do. 

I don't.  I think Church leaders, when speaking about the Law of Chastity, have generally spoken against behaviors.  

7 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Did/Does what they say raise to the level of advocating active violence against such people.  I would think not.

Nor do I.

Thanks,

-Smac

[HappyJackWagon]

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Indeed.

He was talking about scholars at BYU.  He compared them to early Latter-day Saints who, while building the Nauvoo Temple, also stood guard against real threats with muskets.  He analogized this to scholars using the tools of their trade (scholarship) to defend the Church.

He was talking about scholars at BYU.

Says the guy who used a "violent metaphor" of his own when disagreeing with Elder Holland.

This must be one of those "It's different when HWJ does it, because shut up" kind of things.

Unfortunately, the people in that "vulnerable" circumstance - many young Latter-day Saints - are being preyed upon by people who are going out of their way to terrorize them, to alienate them, to tell them that their family and friends and religious leaders and community hate them, to instill fear and anger and mistrust and hatred in their hearts.

It's an ugly thing to behold.

You allow yourself the right to use a word like "combat" metaphorically, but vilify Elder Holland for speaking about "metaphorical muskets."

The irony.  It burns.

Thanks,

-Smac

Your inability to even consider the possibility that violent metaphors/teachings/stories could lead to violent behavior is astounding to me. Apparently it's impossible for someone who heard stories (sometimes glorified) of violence (like Teancum, or Moroni, or Nephi- or Brigham Young) to consider violence means as a solution to a perceived problem.

I guess you're claiming that allies are the ones preying upon, terrorizing and alienating members of the LGBTQ community by honestly pointing out the open hostility that really exists. 

Perhaps "musket fire" has an innocuous meaning similar to this innocuous meaning of "combat". The definition below doesn't sound as violent as "musket fire"

Edited November 22, 2022 by HappyJackWagon

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

It's stunning that you take offense of two "maybe" statements.

Imagine someone saying this: "Maybe John Jones has raped ZERO children.  But then again, maybe he has raped some."

If John Jones protested against this characterization, do you think he would be satisfied with a response of "It's stunning that you take offense of two 'maybe' statements"?

8 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

And that is what you are basing your accusation on.

You said: "Maybe church affiliation had ZERO to do with this guy's belief system, but then again, maybe some of the teachings he grew up did play a role."

Your implication here is as innocuous as the above statement about John Jones.  The difference is that John Jones is entirely fictional, and the implication against him is entirely hypothetical.

Meanwhile, you are actually publicizing this horrendous implication against the Church.  And you don't even have the shame to deny it.

-Smac

[BlueDreams]

25 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Can you describe a relationship that you would find hostile?

Perhaps I see hostility more easily than you do. Perhaps I'm too sensitive. But yes, I would definitely view open discrimination against a religious group participating in a ministerial alliance as an adversarial relationship. I would view rejection of a specific group or the targeting of a specific group (whether religious, ethnic, racial, LGBTQ) as hostile to that group. I see religious people showing up at a school board meeting to demand the Gay/straight alliance be disbanded as hostile. I think it's easier to view hostility in others who don't share your view while people who may be acting in an adversarial way, yet agree with you, are more likely to get the benefit of the doubt.

I can't answer for BB, but I think of hostile relationships as ones that are more proactively aggressive in their forms of disagreement and those that see or treat another as an enemy or threat. So a person saying they think I'm going to hell and that JS is a fraud, earnestly, while trying to maintain a relationship with me may be off-putting and may be even offensive...but I wouldn't view them as hostile. Nor would not allowing me to participate in certain ways in their religious or private spaces. If said person then used said beliefs to shut down my participation or voice in public spaces because they believed my views were a danger to society and needed to be stopped at all costs, that would be hostile/adversarial. If they ran me out of town, or spread rumors about me to make my experience in a public space a living hell that would be hostile or adversarial. In communication, if they were pointing doctrinal divergence and saying that I wasn't christian because I wasn't orthodox, that wouldn't be hostile even if I find that logic seriously flawed. If they were using hyperbolic rumors and mischaracterizations to make me seem more satanic and circumspect to the community, that would be hostile/adversarial. 

That said, I'd find your ex-bishop decision dumb and indicative of the problem with polarization, but not immediately hostile. After all, his decision is his and only really effects his family and whoever agrees with him. If he used his decision to then lead the school body to make sure the club could never be formed, that I'd more likely find as hostile. 

 

With luv,

BD

[smac97]

42 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Your inability to even consider the possibility that violent metaphors/teachings/stories could lead to violent behavior is astounding to me.

Right back atcha.  Your inability to construe anything the Church says or does in any but the worse way possible is astounding to me.

No, there is no reasonable possibility that Elder Holland's reference to "metaphorical muskets" could "lead to violent behavior."

Do you blame Bernie Sanders' generalized political philosophy/rhetoric for the 2017 mass shooting by one of his supporters, James Hodgkinson?

Do you blame the Democratic Party for the killing of Cayler Ellingson by Shannon Brandt, apparently due to a political dispute ("'Brandt admitted to striking the pedestrian with his car because he had a political argument with the pedestrian and believed the pedestrian was calling people to come get him,” the court document continues")?  

Do you blame Rand Paul's political/ideological opponents for the physical assault on him by his neighbor, Rene Boucher ("Earlier accounts of the incident suggested bad blood between the neighbors, who have known each other for roughly 17 years, including a dispute over a property line and possible distaste for Paul's politics, as well as those of his father, former Texas Rep. Ron Paul.")?

I suspect your answers will be "No," "No" and "No."  And I would agree.

42 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Apparently it's impossible for someone who heard stories (sometimes glorified) of violence (like Teancum, or Moroni, or Nephi- or Brigham Young) to consider violence means as a solution to a perceived problem.

It's possible, but not reasonable.

If some whackdoodle were to read your "violent metaphor" about "combat," and then proceed to go out and commit some horrendous act of violence, would you feel culpable for that?  Surely not.  And you would be entirely justified in denying culpability.

And yet, somehow, there is some sort of causal link between last year's "metaphorical musket" comment by Elder Holland and the recent mass shooting in Colorado, or something.  "Maybe."  "{T}his stuff doesn't happen in a vacuum."

The mind reels.

-Smac

Edited November 22, 2022 by smac97

[JLHPROF]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

No, I don't think it will.

I think the past and ongoing indications are all but guarantee precisely the opposite of what you are suggesting.

Pretty sure I've seen statements like this multiple times in Church history.

Church teachings say something will never/ can never be allowed.  Then it's allowed.

But probably not for a decade or two and a couple of administrations.

[HappyJackWagon]

6 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

I can't answer for BB, but I think of hostile relationships as ones that are more proactively aggressive in their forms of disagreement and those that see or treat another as an enemy or threat. So a person saying they think I'm going to hell and that JS is a fraud, earnestly, while trying to maintain a relationship with me may be off-putting and may be even offensive...but I wouldn't view them as hostile. Nor would not allowing me to participate in certain ways in their religious or private spaces. If said person then used said beliefs to shut down my participation or voice in public spaces because they believed my views were a danger to society and needed to be stopped at all costs, that would be hostile/adversarial. If they ran me out of town, or spread rumors about me to make my experience in a public space a living hell that would be hostile or adversarial. In communication, if they were pointing doctrinal divergence and saying that I wasn't christian because I wasn't orthodox, that wouldn't be hostile even if I find that logic seriously flawed. If they were using hyperbolic rumors and mischaracterizations to make me seem more satanic and circumspect to the community, that would be hostile/adversarial. 

That said, I'd find your ex-bishop decision dumb and indicative of the problem with polarization, but not immediately hostile. After all, his decision is his and only really effects his family and whoever agrees with him. If he used his decision to then lead the school body to make sure the club could never be formed, that I'd more likely find as hostile. 

 

With luv,

BD

2 specific examples I used were 1- Ministerial alliance which is a public group of religous leaders within a community. the other was 2- a high school club. In both cases groups were prohibited from participating. This is discrimination.

I would certainly view the church's proactive efforts to deny marriage rights from the LGBTQ community as aggressive, discriminatory and hostile.

[smac97]

The blame game is gearing up pretty quickly: 

Quote

Over the weekend, a 22-year-old man opened fire on a Colorado Springs nightclub during a drag performance, leaving five people dead and a nation in mourning and seeking answers for what could have radicalized such an individual to wage senseless violence against the LGBTQ community.

Some pointed to his family—the shooter's grandfather was a Republican member of the California Assembly who once compared the January 6 riots at the U.S. Capitol to the American Revolutionary War. The lawmaker, Randy Voepel, has said he hasn't spoken to his grandson in at least a decade.

Others sought to blame the failures of law enforcement, questioning both the strength of Colorado's red flag law and the fact that the shooter was previously known to police.

More, including Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, cited the positions of the modern Republican Party as tools of incitement as it has made the LGBTQ community a cornerstone of its rhetoric.

A sizable number, however, pointed to the shooter's upbringing within the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints—an institution that has long wrestled with its legacy of non-acceptance among the LGBTQ community.

"We don't get to pick and choose," Rosemary Card, a Mormon influencer and author of the 2018 book Model Mormon tweeted after the shooting. "We have to face it. Anti-LGBTQ rhetoric from the church influences members."

The church has condemned the shooting—and called the public reflex to condemn an entire religion based on the shooter's actions problematic.

Yeesh.

Quote

But LGBTQ advocates were quick to highlight their own experiences within the church as well as Mormon leaders' reluctance to take tangible action to address the barriers they've built between the LGBTQ community and their religion.

While members of the LGBTQ community are permitted to remain a part of the Mormon community, the LDS church does not allow same-sex couples to marry or maintain a physical relationship, nor are they permitted to receive church ordinances.

Speaking at Brigham Young University in 2021, its president, Jeffrey Holland, called on adherents of the faith to deploy a "little more musket fire" against those who seek to degrade the institution of marriage within the church, drawing widespread criticism from those within the religion as well as outside of it.
...
While many in the faith agree it is not fair to malign an entire religion for one man's actions, they also agree it can't avoid its own complicity in perpetuating a culture that fundamentally believes the LGTBQ community's existence is incompatible with the teachings of its god.

Yeesh, again.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

11 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Pretty sure I've seen statements like this multiple times in Church history.

Church teachings say something will never/ can never be allowed.  Then it's allowed.

Feel free to cite examples.

11 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

But probably not for a decade or two and a couple of administrations.

We'll see, I suppose.

Thanks,

-Smac

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I am noting the convenient cowardice and mindreading going on here.

It is cowardice to publicly malign the Latter-day Saints for voting in large numbers in support of Prop 8, but saying nothing at all about the similarly significant numbers in the Black community who did the same thing.  The cowardice arises because, well, slandering the 70% of Black voters as bigots because they disagreed with re-defining marriage is a nonstarter, whereas publicly disparaging the Latter-day Saints for the same thing is just hunky dory.

An ethnicity you are born into and a church you choose to associate with are somehow comparable demographics to you? That is just sad and very worrying.

[Stormin' Mormon]

3 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

 

These seem breathtakingly black and white and cynical to me. 

Personally I think it's a poor construct to define a relationship as either "friendly" or "adverserial." That's not the case in normal relationships, even with people we don't like. There is broad spectrum of interactions that doesn't make one an adversary just because they don't meet one's expectations for friendly. Personally I think the church is trying to be friendly and trying make space (emphasis trying, it is imperfect and inconsistent particularly on the local levels) while also maintaining beliefs seen as fundamental and maintain boundaries around those. I don't know where that fits in a polarizing paradigm that you've given.

I find it cynical that the only potential reason that the church is evolving in it's approach/teachings is because of a losing PR battle. Maybe you've always been a perfect ally, completely alligned with every assertion and perspective and experience within the LGBTQ framework. I know I haven't and still am not, but I've certainly changed in the last decade or 2. The changes I've made are not from simply external pressure to change, but exposure and reflection on my own beliefs with those of others. There's beliefs i have that I know are generally supportive and ones that I still strongly disagree with. Some of these will likely never change for me, some of them have shifted a little. I don't see a massive difference between me and another with a higher leadership calling.  Can there be no space for that to also be apart of the shifts happening? Or does it just have to be about optics? 

 

 

With luv,

BD

I could only upvote this post once, despite being the single best post I've read on this topic on this  board in many years.  Thank you, BD, for providing such a level-headed assessment.  So, rather than give you all the upvotes I want, I'm quoting and replying and hoping that others read your thoughts and take them seriously.

[HappyJackWagon]

Quote

  1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I am noting the convenient cowardice and mindreading going on here.

It is cowardice to publicly malign the Latter-day Saints for voting in large numbers in support of Prop 8, but saying nothing at all about the similarly significant numbers in the Black community who did the same thing.  The cowardice arises because, well, slandering the 70% of Black voters as bigots because they disagreed with re-defining marriage is a nonstarter, whereas publicly disparaging the Latter-day Saints for the same thing is just hunky dory.

Apparently, it is cowardice to criticize a church with which I am affiliated if I don't also criticize an entire racial group with which I am not affiliated. You realize that's crazy...right? 

Be honest. You don't really mean that, do you?